While I agree that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the north end of a southbound donkey, Christopher Hitchens is edging dangerously close to giving meaning to the term "Islamaphobia".

British Muslims are not a bunch of crazed religious zealots. It's common to meet someone with a Muslim name who displays no sign of religious ideology.

This is hardly surprising, given that most British Muslims hail from the Indian subcontinent where even in Pakistan, the most Muslim country in the region, many women do not wear headscarves, for instance.

The problems to which Hitchens alludes - cousin marriage and gential mutilation - are not specifically Muslim practices. Cousin-marriage is widespread among all religious denominations in India, while female circumcision predates Islam and is not prescribed by the Koran.

Hitch is tarring Islam with any backward practice imported from the poorest parts of the world. His piece is even more intellectually risible than the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

British Muslims are not a bunch of crazed religious zealots.

Well someone is, and it's not me.

You can hardly blame Hitchens. The actions of this minority as you describe them have created the situation.

Also, you mention cousin marriage in India. I have no knowledge of this practice being common amongst Sikhs or Hindus who I know for a fact mock this practice for being unnatural. Are you using nationality to obfuscate the issue? Looks like it!

Also, how many so-called leading Muslim countries can you think of where othere religions are allowed to be openly practised?

The Archbishop of Canterbury is an out-of-touch idiot!

To answer your points:

Cross-cousin marriage is discouraged by north Indians, but encouraged by Dravidian Hindus in the south of the country. Feel free to Google this if you don't believe me.

Secondly, there are lots of Muslim countries that allow the practice of other religions. Off the top of my head: Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Iraq, and various ones in Africa.

Cross-cousin marriage by a single sub-sect of Hindus in India does not compare to, in your words "Cousin-marriage is widespread among all religious denominations in India".

Further "allowing" the practice of other religions is quite different for treating other religions the same under law. I do not know what it is like in the African countries, but in Pakistan (which has modified sharia law) , non-Muslims are legally second class citizens. In matters of law they are required to have testimonials from Muslim citizens in order to file charges against Muslims. And THAT is just off the top of my head. We haven't even gotten into property rights, domestic abuse, rape and the like. Google Pakistani Laws and cross check if you wish.

Bravo! Well said. My thoughts exactly. Have you seen how they treat non-Muslims in Pakistan? I won't even bother about some of the other countries mentioned.

Despite the ranting of the Conservative Right in the USA, liberalism is the greatest philosophy yet invented by man. What is better than saying do what you like as long as you do not intrude on my life. Of course that does not mean anything goes but as a general rule, it has to be right.

Dravidian Hindus are not a single "sub-sect" of Hinduism. They're people who speak Dravidian languages such as Tamil, Kannada, etc. i.e the people who occupy the entire south of the country. Hundreds of millions of Hindus, in other words.

Secondly, as I said, non-Muslims are allowed to practice their religion in many Muslim countries. I didn't say their religions were afforded equal legal status.

But I could hardly demand that they be granted such status, because in my country (the UK) Islam is not afforded equal legal status to Christianity. As the Archbishop has pointed out, to much derision.

Which still does not cover "all religious denominations".

And pray tell how exactly are UK muslims second class legal citizens? Find me a law that says for example, xyz provides a legal right only to Christian citizens and not to Muslim citizens if you cannot . It's unbelievable.The rights of any individual trump the needs of a religion. If a woman chooses to wear a head scarf that is her right. If she is being forced to wear it under threat of stoning (hello Saudi Arabia) that is not a right can be established in a multicultural society.

The Hindus in the UK should demand that they be allowed to throw widows on burning pyres. After all it is a religious tradition that pre-dates Islam by several centuries. They reason they dont do so is because the vast majority of them recognize what a disgrace that tradition is and have the decency to be ashamed of it.

And by the way I am neither Hindu nor Muslim. I am an Indian Christian , born and raised in Mumbai.

Nick Westayer

1 - [Bravo! Well said. My thoughts exactly. Have you seen how they treat non-Muslims in Pakistan? I won't even bother about some of the other countries mentioned.]

2 - [What is better than saying do what you like as long as you do not intrude on my life. Of course that does not mean anything goes but as a general rule, it has to be right.]

1 - Eureka!!!!! Dogs of the same street bark alike.

Everyone loves justice in the affairs of another. (Italian Proverb.)

What about your ancestors who are treating non-Jewish Palestinians in what is called Israel?

2 - Contradictory arguments always lead to trivial points (2)

Nice straw man. The point was being made to refute Greenwich's (implied) assertion that non-muslims were equivalent to Muslims in Muslim-controlled countries which you chose to conveniently ignore.

If the non-Jewish Palestinians (does that also include the immigrants from Lebanon) being mistreated are citizens of the state of Israel, it is relevant to this thread. If not, that is an entirely different subject. But that was a worthy attempt there to conflate two entirely different issues.

Holy snowman,

The point was being made to refute Greenwich's (implied) assertion that non-Muslims were equivalent to Muslims in Muslim-controlled countries which you chose to conveniently ignore.

First of all, this was a modest participation aiming to add something to this issue. Second, my point is in the heart of the matter since we talk about the suffering people from different religious backgrounds and who have to coexist in the same areas. Third, this issue has only been raised as an incitement to more hatred. Let's examine these, step by step.

1- Ex-Yugoslavia (Europe): Bosnians and non-Muslims cleansings.

2- Armenia (Europe): Turkish "Muslims" sectarians and non-Muslims cleansings.

3- Rwanda (Africa) :ethnic and non-Muslims massacre.

4- Kurdistan :(bordering Turkey, Iraq and Syria)and their lost Home.

5- Israel: Arabs Palestinians being treated as 2nd class Humans by non-Muslims.

6- India: Moslems being minority are conveniently treated by Sikhs who are by the way non-Moslems.

7- China and Buddha's disciples who are oppressed by non-Moslems.

Now let's see how things are in certain Islamic Countries and how different religious minorities are treated.

A/ Saudi Arabia for Moslems is to be compared to the Vatican for the Christians. No room for other religions.

B/ Egypt: Copts represent what's considered as Egypt elite.

C/ Lebanon: No problem between different religious entities.

D/ / Morocco: all I know is that the three religions are mutually respected.

E/ Iran: Never heard about such problems.

F/ Syria: Sorry I know nothing about its minorities.

Etc.…

I'm interested in the source of these statements you make. I do not know about all of them but two of them are so uninformed that I have cause to doubt every thing you say.

"6- India: Moslems being minority are conveniently treated by Sikhs who are by the way non-Moslems."

Where to begin- Sikhs cannot be called non-Muslims. Sikhism is derived in equal parts from Hinduism and Islam. They are considered by most religious scholars and most educated Muslims to be something akin to a sect.

Sikhs form about 2% of the Indian population. Muslims are about 21%. Either you (a) do not know what 'minority' means (b) are using an idiot (person or website) as your source or (c) have no source and are making things up as you go along.

Saudi Arabia vs the Vatican - This right here gives you away as a master of strawmen. To compare a country with a multicultural populace to a pseudo-country that is made up entirely of religious officials with no lay people of any religion and that includes Christians. The correct comparison would be the Vatican vs the Controllers of the Mosque at Mecca but that would not serve your cause.

No problems in Iran??You have got to be kidding. Find out population distributions of different religions in Iran before the US instituted Shah ( i.e. during Mossadek's tenure) and compare it to the Ayatollah state.

Not only are you spewing propaganda, it is weak, uninformed propaganda. I have no doubt that if I researched each one of your statements they would bear about as much resemble to the truth as the one's I have just taken apart here.

1/

link

Lebanon - No Problems????????????????????

Syrai assasinating the Prime Minister, not a problem?????

Hamas storing hundreds of bombs and weapons in private homes, not a problem??????

A civil war, not a problem?????????